policy. Now in the Western democracies we see the victorious advance of the other facets of this "awakening" — populism, and it looks like he has a direct relationship to Vladimir Putin. What does it mean?

Brzezinski: I think their attraction to Putin too exaggerated — mainly due to the efforts of journalists pursuing their own interests. Of course, individual leaders of these movements admire him primarily because of his authoritarian approach to management; but I see no evidence of mass sympathy for him in any serious country.

The rise of populist movements in the European democratic countries is the result of feelings of confusion and at the same time freedom. The Europeans were freed from their past, when part of the world in which they live, was divided by the Cold war, and completed the process of economic integration, and this has brought new challenges — including the immigration crisis. In the minds of people formed a mess, they can't agree on where to move. The result is a mess with signs of hysteria, in which the use of violence as a means, I fear, will play an increasingly important role. And over time, the situation will only worsen.

All of the above largely also applies to the current state of American democracy. We have no sober-minded leaders — we have to honor the slogan and catchy statements, plus increases the propensity to domestic violence.

Some groups and political leaders can position itself as Pro-Russian, it is true, and the Russian intelligence service is muddying the waters, trying to undermine the unity of Europe on the issue of anti-Russian sanctions, supporting sympathizers Moscow political forces. But compared to the deep dynamics that I described, this is all mere trifles.

Zbigniew BrzezinskiPhoto: Jiang Guopeng / Zumapress / Globallookpress.comBy the way, about the Russian intelligence service to interfere in the Affairs of Western democracies. The CIA and the FBI accused Russia of trying to interfere in the recent U.S. elections to ensure the victory of Donald trump. According to President Obama, this directly implicated Putin. Is Russia really to blame? Is it true that Putin is personally involved in these cases?

Yes, Russian intelligence, of course, was directly involved in the action. Yes, Putin was also personally involved in them. Russian intelligence is not an independent organization, this is a public service created for specific political purposes. Putin completely controls the state apparatus, no doubt.

The intervention had a very definite purpose. The Russians hoped thus to complicate the American political life, although initially, he was not so sure that Putin will be able in any way to influence events and help Trump to win. Later the situation changed, trump has gained popularity, and this prompted them to take up the matter seriously. They became more ambitious and assertive.

However, I absolutely do not mean that the Russian efforts have influenced in a decisive way to the polls and led to the success of the elected President of the trump. He won solely because of American domestic factors and because of its impressive political skills. On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that Russia's efforts had no effect on the outcome of the election.

A senior representative of the intelligence community told me last week that the Russian and Americans for decades to try to influence elections around the globe. What is happening now he described by the formula "old tactics, new methods", plus advanced digital technology. Is it really so? Or are we dealing with something entirely new?

New methods allow you to act in this field on a much larger scale than before. Accordingly, they are much more efficient and bring greater results than before. This is a new element, and of course, it is deeply troubling.

President-elect Donald trump sent down the drain all the established geopolitical situation, taking the tube during the call of the President of Taiwan and hinting that he is ready to cast doubt on the principle of "one China." In his time as national security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, you have been negotiating the recognition of this policy with Deng Xiaoping. What dangers do you see with such a sharp change of course?

The main danger, I think, is that this step provokes the opposition on key U.S. foreign policy direction, and does not give us any serious strategic advantages. The confrontation with Beijing is not in our interests. Much better to encourage China to cooperate most closely with us, thereby forcing the Russians to follow the example of Chinese, if they don't want to be isolated. This bond will allow US to maximally extend its political influence in the world through collective cooperation.

I don't think this prospect should jeopardize the demonstrative gestures of the kind referred to a telephone call which is not accompanied by any constructive action. It's just a pointless irritant.

A world in which America and China are cooperating is the world where American influence reaches its peak. If we decrease your chances of such a senseless and irritating actions, as we will be able to succeed?

Some are concerned that the administration is trump to jump into the arms of Moscow and take a course for a thaw to replace the current cooling in bilateral relations. Will not go if it is to benefit regional stability — because then disappear impulse, pushing Russia and China to each other and to encourage them to present a United anti-Western front?

Speaking about the relations with China, Russia is America not a competitor — she simply cannot offer as much as we do. The Chinese understand very well: we can be weakened, depleted, down the course, but America for most of the parameters still remains the number one power in the world, although China is now almost caught up with her. The Chinese simply have no choice. If they oppose America, they will lose. In their interest to enter the world top. The reverse is also true for US if they decide to alienate China.

There is nothing particularly complicated. It is only a matter of recognition of some fundamental strategic realities. If you constantly irritate the Chinese, and to bring them to the point they start to look for alternatives and find them. Not to say that the described situation was particularly comfortable, but it is fraught with more serious danger.

Some concern trump the slogan "America first", which casts doubt on the value of alliances, trade agreements and agreements on climate change. Whether it will lead to the fact that the United States distanciruemsa from the world's problems? Europe is now in chaos, Russia withdrew from the number of world-class players. I wonder if that is the only major power with a global agenda will be the China?

To highlight has been said above about the fundamental strategic realities, I repeat: the US and China — the world's leading power. In the years since the normalization of our relations, we have worked hand-in-hand, not for military or aggressive purposes, but in the name of strengthening security and stability necessary to ensure that each could pursue their own interests. In the modern world, neither China nor the United States can't be the only leader. Will sharpen the thesis, though perhaps this idea will seem to someone paradoxical: if America tries to act without China, alone, she will not be able to defend their place under the sun.

If we keep this in mind, we can gradually begin the formation of the world is more stable than the world today is extremely volatile and unpredictable. The long-term interests of America lie mostly to deepen our ties with China, not to tear them in the name of tactical benefits.